Do you believe in hell?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
i think this applies to any and all faith traditions when their adherents appear to think they have all the answers. faith has to be rooted in doubt, otherwise it's delusion

I would say that faith is rooted in questions, which is a little bit different than doubt. If I have doubt in anything, it is in the world as it is. As if all we can see is all there is. Faith, according to the author of the book of Hebrews, is defined as "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." I don't have it all figured out -- we're all on a journey -- but like I said in an earlier post, I've yet to find something that undoes my faith.
 
I would say that faith is rooted in questions, which is a little bit different than doubt. If I have doubt in anything, it is in the world as it is. As if all we can see is all there is. Faith, according to the author of the book of Hebrews, is defined as "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." I don't have it all figured out -- we're all on a journey -- but like I said in an earlier post, I've yet to find something that undoes my faith.



when you put it like this -- that faith is more hope -- then it seems to add credence that faith functions more to keep us from going mad at the thought of our impending doom and an eternity of nonexistence. "gosh, i really hope this isn't it."

but i'm more interested in your reaction to what was the actual point of my post -- that such specificity (rooms, realms, judgments, etc.) is little more than snake oil. to me, it seems to reveal a lack of real knowledge (which none of us have anyway) and is evidence of things we tell ourselves rather than a reality that cannot yet be seen or perceived.
 
look, i understand there are different faith traditions and people choose to believe different texts, but can you also understand how someone would look at what you just wrote and think that it's preposterous and totally made up?

i don't mean this as a criticism of you specifically, i'm just using this as a jumping off point. it applies to everyone.

no, and
please..

don't
jump..


:hug:

King James Bible
There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.

1Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.

2In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you

Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection
 
when you put it like this -- that faith is more hope -- then it seems to add credence that faith functions more to keep us from going mad at the thought of our impending doom and an eternity of nonexistence. "gosh, i really hope this isn't it."

I don't know. I think the hope of the human heart is rooted in reality. When I met my wife, for example, I found the one I'd been hoping for. I'm sure it's the same for you and Memphis. We are as capable of well-placing our hope as mis-placing it. I look at my faith and hope as well placed, because I don't miss the rest of the verse -- "substance" and "evidence", which I have experienced.

but i'm more interested in your reaction to what was the actual point of my post -- that such specificity (rooms, realms, judgments, etc.) is little more than snake oil. to me, it seems to reveal a lack of real knowledge (which none of us have anyway) and is evidence of things we tell ourselves rather than a reality that cannot yet be seen or perceived.

Here you and I agree. Jesus had to speak in our language, and put complex, eternal spiritual realities into a context we could understand. The reality on the other side may be far grander than we can imagine on this side, but the poetry of the Scriptures does not make them any less true.
 
To me, hope - no matter how you define it - is not an acceptable criteria for accepting a belief.

It was suggested that one may experience "all that I ever hoped for" when meeting the person who would later be a wife/husband/partner. But isn't it at least possible that under a different set of circumstances this could have been an entirely different person? Don't we in these cases retrofit our hopes to match up with the present. The self-fulfilling prophecy.

In other words, unless you really believe that there is only one person in the world who is "meant" for you (i.e. soul mate), then you must believe that there are many possibilities out there. Many soul-mates.

Am I making sense?

If the above statement does make sense, how can hope in something justify it as truth?

I cannot believe in some out of hope
Nor can I believe in something out of fear (i.e. pascal's wager)

I do not think my faith will ever be restored - and I'm 100% sure it would never be restored in a theistic God. Deism is one road I could have went down when I started questioning my beliefs, but it's too late for even that now I think.
Only an undeniable phenomenon directly experienced, or corroborated by several skeptical minds could sway me now.
 
It was suggested that one may experience "all that I ever hoped for" when meeting the person who would later be a wife/husband/partner. But isn't it at least possible that under a different set of circumstances this could have been an entirely different person? Don't we in these cases retrofit our hopes to match up with the present. The self-fulfilling prophecy.

When I went on my first date with my wife, I had not already chosen her, but somehow when I met her, I found the things I'd been looking for. What I hoped for is what I needed. Like I said earlier, we can have hope that is well-placed or mis-placed. But that doesn't mean that hope is valid or invalid, only that the object of our hope is valid or invalid.

I think faith and love are very similar a lot of times. We know they are true not because they line up according to some intellectual and rational basis, but because we know it with our heart, spirit, soul. I don't think that's where faith (or love) ends -- but I do think that's where it starts, a lot of times.
 
this talk of hope drove me to look up a favourite quote of mine.
Here is the very interesting thing:
I googled this quote using quotation marks and received just one return. This one return was a post of mine here on interference in 2002!

"Irony is the attendant of hope and hope is the fuel of innocence"

I read that line once, and I have never forgotten it.

The book was about the Great War.

Anyway, on a different note, I do appreciate your thoughts, and I do hope to find some validation of the concepts of spirit and soul in the experience of love someday, even if I still regard them as natural phenomenons. But that is a topic for another day.

EDIT. I realize now why there was only one return. Because I had originally quoted it incorrectly. In my search I entered "hope is the fuel of innocence", and this is what I wrote all those years ago. The correct quotation is, 'Irony is the attendant of hope, and the fuel of hope is innocence'
 
I'm not so sure I agree that we, as adults, should have the faith of a child
I do think we should have the inquisitiveness of a child though
 
I think faith and love are very similar a lot of times. We know they are true not because they line up according to some intellectual and rational basis, but because we know it with our heart, spirit, soul. I don't think that's where faith (or love) ends -- but I do think that's where it starts, a lot of times.


which, i think, makes them distinct from hope. i didn't hope for a boyfriend. in a way, i made my relationship happen because i was ready for a relationship. there's no need to get into my dating past, but i was at a point in my life where i was ready to really be with someone, and i was dating with that intention. i met Memphis, and i wasn't like "you are the one i've been waiting for" it was more "i believe we could be great together." what i saw in him was less the fulfillment of my boyfriend dreams and more the potential for there to be an "us," so to speak, that we could be perfect for each other, and there's been quite a bit of work (as i'm sure you know) in making it all work. maintaining a relationship that fulfilles the heart, spirit and soul has required a solid rational and intellectual basis.

ok, so after writing that, here's a distinction: i think we hope for things to happen that we cannot control. i hope i don't get cancer. i hope everyone in my family stays healthy. but i don't have faith that i won't get cancer, nor do i have faith that everyone in my family stays healthy. rather, i have faith that if i work hard then i will be rewarded at my job. i have faith that if i treat Memphis the way i'd like to be treated, we'll be together for another 6 years. my faith would be tempered by the acknowledgment that things happen far beyond my control and can alter my end result, but i have faith that i can at least affect the outcome. whereas when i hope, i admit that i have no control and am powerless against the incoming tide.

where that gets us, i don't know, but that's what's occurred to me as i start my second glass of wine.
 
I'm not so sure I agree that we, as adults, should have the faith of a child
I do think we should have the inquisitiveness of a child though

I don't disagree. This is why I said that faith, like love, starts with the heart; it may not end there, nor should it, but it's where it starts...

Or at least that's what I think after a martini...
 
i think we hope for things to happen that we cannot control. i hope i don't get cancer. i hope everyone in my family stays healthy. but i don't have faith that i won't get cancer, nor do i have faith that everyone in my family stays healthy. rather, i have faith that if i work hard then i will be rewarded at my job. i have faith that if i treat Memphis the way i'd like to be treated, we'll be together for another 6 years. my faith would be tempered by the acknowledgment that things happen far beyond my control and can alter my end result, but i have faith that i can at least affect the outcome. whereas when i hope, i admit that i have no control and am powerless against the incoming tide.

where that gets us, i don't know, but that's what's occurred to me as i start my second glass of wine.

As always, thoughtful. We should both post perhaps with some alcohol in us more often.

If I was going to parse scripture, I would point out that faith works alongside hope, and that faith confirms -- in its own way -- some of the things we hope for. I agree -- there are some things over which we have no control, and those things remain in the realm of hope. But there are other things we hope for that can, perhaps, result in faith. Maybe hope points us in the direction of faith? If faith is the substance of things hoped for, then faith is the result of hope.

For example, to use your situation -- you didn't hope to meet Memphis, but you did, perhaps, hope not to grow old alone. Can you control that outcome? To a certain extent, no, but the hope not to be alone created the space for a relationship which then gave you the faith that you now have in your relationship. So I don't see the dichotomy that you do.
 
I think my main question now is, why should I believe the scripture is anything other than a books some guys wrote 1500-2000 years ago? It seems to be the basis of all faith and all references of faith. Why is it more than just a book humans wrote?
 
Faith/Hope will never be enough to convince me there is a heaven/hell. I can't live in that world or that mindset.

I do have faith of course. I have faith that if I live my life as a good person, that good things will be returned to me (kind to others, etc). The problem is, as every single one of us knows, that isn't enough to make it true. Good people get treated poorly for no sane reason at all sometimes. Sometimes bad things happen.

Believing or hoping that they won't is not going to stop it. Actually following through with the talk of being good will increase your odds of having a good or satisfying life, as it's all in the eye of the beholder.

It makes me very happy when I see people of a denomination or faith doing good works, and there are many examples of people doing good deeds because of their faith. Nothing wrong with that at all. Just as there are many examples of people without faith doing good deeds.

I just wish faith would stay a personal matter. Not something that's a requirement for higher office, or a means to judge someone else, or even hurt that person.

If Jesus/Allah/God/Yahweh/etc want me to follow them, I need more than faith. IMO, that's not free will, that's playing a game with my emotions and hedging a bet that I will follow for fear of being alone.

If a God were to present itself by it's own power, not speaking through "followers" or some vague imagine on a pancake ;), I would then be able to make my decision, which would be a true representation of free will as the assumption in this scenerio would be that I have the evidence I have been asking for, and if I still chose not to believe.....that's truly being free.
 
I think my main question now is, why should I believe the scripture is anything other than a books some guys wrote 1500-2000 years ago? It seems to be the basis of all faith and all references of faith. Why is it more than just a book humans wrote?


imho, it isn't.
 
BEAL:
Ray Comfort would say, "look at all the birds and the beautiful flowers, and the clouds, man! The clouds!"
 
It seems to be the basis of all faith and all references of faith.
According to who? I simply don't think this is accurate, at all. Most "religious" people believe there is a God because they believe there is a God, period. They may also believe that the sum total traditions associated with some particular religion (its scriptures, established theological canon, customary modes of observance etc.) offer the "best," most accurate portrayal of the nature of God and the relationship of man to God available to us--given that the full answers to those questions are, by definition, not self-evident nor empirically verifiable. Now if we're talking about children only, then what you're suggesting might somewhat apply, since young children aren't really capable of contemplating abstractions on the order they'd need to to ask, "On what authority are these underlying claims of the existence (or nonexistence) of a transcendent, supernatural entity even being made?" But I have yet to meet a mentally competent adult who doesn't immediately recognize the validity of the question. You might not be impressed with their answers, but that doesn't mean they don't understand the question and haven't asked it of themselves.

We could talk of a continuum of sorts in terms of how critically specific individuals examine various propositions about how to live and what is true that are put before them. But no human being exists who doesn't approach those questions under heavy influence of various forms of received authority. Human reasoning offers some powerful correctives to the dangers of that process, but it's not an "alternative" to it. If you personally aspire to an ethics and a vision of the human condition that never draws on explicit references to God, to specific religious scriptures, or to religious doctrines per se, so as to avoid that specific potential for corruption, then fine, go for it. It won't give you a saintly purity of intellect or enable you to reason in an existential vacuum devoid of received assumptions, but it's surely as true to the human condition as any other way of being. These questions don't have fully knowable answers, nor are there fully authoritative standpoints from which to contemplate them, via scripture or anything else; we only talk and to a large degree think as if that were the case, because we really have no other choice.
 
In all truth, my disbelief in god is less rooted in reason than it is in self-protection, because if I believed in god, I would be full of rage all of the time. I could not sit in a church for any extended period of time without that fury starting to build. I'm kind of a reverse of Gandhi, I like many Christians, but I do not like Christ (god).

Besides evolution makes much more of an exciting story than Creationism does.
 
BEAL:
Ray Comfort would say, "look at all the birds and the beautiful flowers, and the clouds, man! The clouds!"

Yes, and we have perfectly good explanations of how those things are created, and for the most part, WHY.

Yet we have no explanation of what is God, how he/she came to be except our own opinions.
 
Faith/Hope will never be enough to convince me there is a heaven/hell. I can't live in that world or that mindset.

I do have faith of course. I have faith that if I live my life as a good person, that good things will be returned to me (kind to others, etc). The problem is, as every single one of us knows, that isn't enough to make it true. Good people get treated poorly for no sane reason at all sometimes. Sometimes bad things happen.

Believing or hoping that they won't is not going to stop it. Actually following through with the talk of being good will increase your odds of having a good or satisfying life, as it's all in the eye of the beholder.

It makes me very happy when I see people of a denomination or faith doing good works, and there are many examples of people doing good deeds because of their faith. Nothing wrong with that at all. Just as there are many examples of people without faith doing good deeds.

I just wish faith would stay a personal matter. Not something that's a requirement for higher office, or a means to judge someone else, or even hurt that person.

If Jesus/Allah/God/Yahweh/etc want me to follow them, I need more than faith. IMO, that's not free will, that's playing a game with my emotions and hedging a bet that I will follow for fear of being alone.

If a God were to present itself by it's own power, not speaking through "followers" or some vague imagine on a pancake ;), I would then be able to make my decision, which would be a true representation of free will as the assumption in this scenerio would be that I have the evidence I have been asking for, and if I still chose not to believe.....that's truly being free.



"If a God were to present itself by it's own power, not speaking through "followers" or some vague imagine on a pancake."


He did and they killed him.
 
Scripture is not theophany.

In all truth, my disbelief in god is less rooted in reason than it is in self-protection, because if I believed in god, I would be full of rage all of the time. I could not sit in a church for any extended period of time without that fury starting to build.

Besides evolution makes much more of an exciting story than Creationism does.
Creationism as we know it is a reactionary idea, which pretty much guarantees it'll be suffocatingly dull.

I think coming to terms with the human condition is much harder than coming to terms with the presumed existence or nonexistence of God (though they are related problems). If I thought that God thought ( :doh: ) that God has given us a satisfying, adequate explanation of and solution for our own self-alienation and the miseries that come with it, I would also be angry. Not that that's necessarily even what you had in mind...
I'm kind of a reverse of Gandhi, I like many Christians, but I do not like Christ (god).
In India there's an often-told story, perhaps you've heard it, of a meeting between Gandhi and Jinnah (the 'Father of Pakistan') during the debate over Partition in which Gandhi, seeking to convey the passionately nonsectarian nature of his nationalism, declared, "I am a Hindu...and a Muslim, a Christian, a Zoroastrian, and a Jew." To which Jinnah impatiently snapped, "Only a Hindu could say that."

In all likelihood that's apocryphal; no proper documentation for it has ever emerged, and while Gandhi himself did express precisely that sentiment on other occasions, it doesn't really sound like something Jinnah would say. But many Indians delight in it, because it perfectly encapsulates an enduringly familiar contest between the tireless mystical optimist and the grumpy rationalist cynic on the potential of human solidarity, given God's presumed existence. No matter what one thinks of him, it takes a one-in-billions kind of will to be a Gandhi, and in the end it was a 'fellow' Hindu nationalist who assassinated him. Today that man is, not inappropriately, reviled as a 'fanatic,' but Gandhi may well have been the greater fanatic, in terms of in what and in whom he chose to invest his trust.
 
I think coming to terms with the human condition is much harder than coming to terms with the presumed existence or nonexistence of God (though they are related problems). If I thought that God thought ( :doh: ) that God has given us a satisfying, adequate explanation of and solution for our own self-alienation and the miseries that come with it, I would also be angry. Not that that's necessarily even what you had in mind.

Yeah. to accept god or dispense with him is the easy part.
 
But many Indians delight in it, because it perfectly encapsulates an enduringly familiar contest between the tireless mystical optimist and the grumpy rationalist cynic on the potential of human solidarity, given God's presumed existence. No matter what one thinks of him, it takes a one-in-billions kind of will to be a Gandhi, and in the end it was a 'fellow' Hindu nationalist who assassinated him. Today that man is, not inappropriately, reviled as a 'fanatic,' but Gandhi may well have been the greater fanatic, in terms of in what and in whom he chose to invest his trust.

I don't knoiw any more about Ghandi than the typical casually informed American. Impressions mostly. The impression was certainly one of admiration with some frustration, but it is quite vague for me. Can you recommend a good book on him for me? But being a grumpy rationalist cynic myself, I could imagine some frustration there. Of course, my grumpy, rationalistic cynic in me has to fight for time against the pie-eyed optimist me and the superstitious me. I never did much get a fix on myself.

I always found the Old Testament much more interesting than the New Testament. Better stories, better characters. I mean, really, pit David against St. Paul. No contest. Once you get past the Crucifixion and maybe some nice pieces in Corinthians, it's pretty tedious. I thought the dynamics between man and god were much more compelling in the Old Testament. Man pushed against god, challenged him. It was a much more intimate relationship. A much more "equal" (if you will) relationship. Man could affect god. Man could shame god.

That changed in the New Testament. In a book review of a Jack Miles book, the reviewer summed up what I was thinking nicely.

The most salient irony of all is one that Miles misses the chance to point out: by replacing the old political covenant with a new spiritual covenant, God gets himself permanently and conveniently off the hook. No one can tell, this side of the valley of the shadow, whether his promise of eternal life will hold up. From his refusal to intervene in John the Baptist's death to his lack of enthusiasm for restoring sovereignty to Israel, he defers victory to the afterlife, where no one can hold him accountable. Lo ha-metim y'hallelu Yah, says Psalm 115: the dead don't praise God, and they may not accuse him either. The life of Christ knits up the raveled ends of God's promises with marvelous ingenuity and skill, but he is still giving aesthetic answers: the promise of eternal life solves his problem, not ours. To a mind looking at the question with profane detachment, it seems likely that he can't keep this promise either.
 
I always found the Old Testament much more interesting than the New Testament. Better stories, better characters. I mean, really, pit David against St. Paul. No contest. Once you get past the Crucifixion and maybe some nice pieces in Corinthians, it's pretty tedious. I thought the dynamics between man and god were much more compelling in the Old Testament. Man pushed against god, challenged him. It was a much more intimate relationship. A much more "equal" (if you will) relationship. Man could affect god. Man could shame god.

Keep in mind that, apart from the Gospels and the Book of Acts, the New Testament is Paul's attempts to lay out a theology -- codifying man's relationship to God in the Old Testament and unpacking a theology of grace in the New. As a result, the OT is story-driven, while the NT is theology-driven. While I agree that the story of David and Goliath may be more narratively compelling than Paul's discussion of an old life and a new life in Romans 7, I find value in both.

And as far as the equanimity in the relationship between God and man, I find this pretty powerful from Jesus on the night he was betrayed: "I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you." ~ John 15:15

And I know of no other more haunting moment in either Scripture than Jesus wrestling with His Father in the Garden of Gethsemane, begging if there is any way for the cup of wrath to be passed from Him...
 
If a God were to present itself by it's own power, not speaking through "followers" or some vague imagine on a pancake ;), I would then be able to make my decision, which would be a true representation of free will as the assumption in this scenerio would be that I have the evidence I have been asking for, and if I still chose not to believe.....that's truly being free.

"You're packing a suitcase for a place none of us have been
"A place that has to be believed to be seen"
~ U2
 
Back
Top Bottom